An Abuja High Court on Friday quashed a criminal summons issued on September 12 by a magistrates’ court against Senator Monday Okpebholo over alleged certificate forgery.

Justice Charles Agbaza in a judgment also voided the entire proceedings before Magistrate Abubakar Mukhtar of a Wuse Magistrate Court in Abuja on grounds that the summons was issued in excess of his jurisdiction and error of law.

Justice Agbaza agreed with Mr Okpebholo that the entire proceedings and the criminal summons were illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of his fundamental human right to fair hearing as guaranteed under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

Mr Okpebholo, who is the governor-elect in the September 21 Edo governorship election, had, through his counsel, Andrew Emwanta, dragged  Honesty Aginbatse amd Mukhtar before the court as 1st and 2nd respondents.

The development followed the criminal summons by Magistrate Mukhtar on September 12, directing Mr Okpebholo to.appear in court on September 20, the eve of the governorship poll in Edo State, over an alleged false statement on his date of birth brought against him by Mr Aginbatse, an indigene of the state.

Mr Okpebholo, the APC candidate in the election, was ordered to appear before the court at noon.

He was accused of claiming conflicting dates of birth in his nomination forms submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission to contest the election.

Against the backdrop, Mr Emwanta filed an originating summons before the FCT High Court marked: CV/4589/2024, seeking an order of certiorari to bring into the court for the purpose of being quashed, the entire proceedings and criminal summons issued on September 12 by Mukhtar at the instance of Mr Aginbatse.

The lawyer, in motion dated and filed on October 21, argued that the action was instituted to prevent Mr Okpebholo from presenting himself as a candidate in the Sept. 21 poll and to disqualify him on false grounds.

He also sought a declaration that the entire proceedings and criminal summons were illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of his client’s fundamental human right to fair hearing guaranteed by the law.

He equally sought an order of prohibition, prohibiting the magistrate from further proceeding with the case number: CR/W22/816/2024 instigated by Mr Aginbatse.

In the affidavit in support of the motion, Mr Emwanta averred that Mr Okpebholo “on March 31, 2022, deposed to an affidavit to correct the mistake in his date of birth (written as August 29, 1972 on his June 2008 WASSCE Certificate.) He also averred that Mr Okpebholo on his permanent voter card had August 1, 1977, as his date of birth instead of August 29, 1970, which is his correct date of birth), before the Commissioner for Oaths in the Registry of this Honourable Court.”

He said Mr Okpebholo also deposed to an Affidavit of Regularisation of Personal Particulars at the Supreme Court of Nigeria Registry on July 26, stating the facts and correcting the aforementioned mistake in his date of birth in both his WASSCE Certificate and Personal Voters Card issued by INEC.

The lawyer said his client further made a declaration via a Deed of Regularisation of Personal Particulars and was sworn to before the Commissioner for Oaths at the Supreme Court’s Registry on July 26, among other steps taken by the governor-elect.

Mr Emwanta argued that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain such a matter being a pre-election matter, under Section 29 of which the law confers jurisdiction on the Federal High Court.

But Mr Aginbatse, in a 16-paragraph counter affidavit filed by his lawyer, Raymond Azinye, urged the court to dismiss the application.

On his part, Mr Mukhtar, who was the 2nd respondent, neither filed any process nor represented in court.

Delivering his judgment, Justice Agbaza agreed with Mr Emwanta that the magistrate ought to have considered the exhibits presented by Mr Okpebholo before issuing such an order.

He cited previous Supreme Court decisions in Osita Nwosu and Imo State Environmental Protection Agency to back his ruling.

The judge, who also agreed with the lawyer on other grounds, barred the magistrate from further proceedings on the case.

He was, however, of the view that the magistrate had a discretion to fix a hearing date of a matter before him.

(NAN)